She Handed THC Chocolates lead to 4 people hospitalized

Added: 2026-05-26

[00:00:00]Can you step out of the car for me, please?

[00:00:02]>> No.

[00:00:02]>> Yeah. Well, I'm telling you to get out of the car.

[00:00:05]>> I'm not going to get out of the car.

[00:00:07]>> Yes, ma'am. I'm giving you a lawful order. You got to step out of the car.

[00:00:11]>> I need to call my lawyer.

[00:00:13]>> Okay, that's fine. You still got to step out of the car, though.

[00:00:16]>> No, I don't.

[00:00:17]>> Yes. Yes.

[00:00:17]>> No, cuz I'm going home.

[00:00:19]>> Ma'am, yesterday there was someone handing out THC gummies and chocolates to little kids at the park.

[00:00:26]>> No. Okay. And then I was just at the park and I see you handing more THC dummies to an adult.

[00:00:30]>> No, that was my friend.

[00:00:32]>> Okay.

[00:00:32]>> Yeah.

[00:00:33]>> I I'm I'm sad because you match the description of someone that was handing out gummies to kids yesterday at the park.

[00:00:40]>> Yesterday I didn't have any gummies first of all.

[00:00:42]>> Okay. Or or chocolates?

[00:00:44]>> No. No, not >> Okay. Well, I'm subbing you cuz you matched the description. So, that's what I'm talking.

[00:00:49]>> What is What's your name?

[00:00:51]>> Joanna.

[00:00:52]>> Joanna. Okay. Where do you live, Joanna?

[00:00:54]in what's your address?

[00:00:59]>> Because right now >> you're being detained because I believe that you're handing out gummies to kids.

[00:01:04]>> No, I'm not being detained. Call my lawyer. Close the door.

[00:01:08]>> This is This conversation is over.

[00:01:10]>> Well, ma'am, if if you have nothing to do with it, that's fine. But I need to know I need to know who you are.

[00:01:15]>> I have to go to my kids. I have to go pick up my kids. Leave me alone.

[00:01:19]>> Okay. Where do you have to pick your kids up at?

[00:01:21]>> In Robins.

[00:01:22]>> Is that a town? Yes.

[00:01:24]>> Okay. How far away is that?

[00:01:26]>> He can tell you. He's my driver.

[00:01:28]>> Okay. Do you have your ID with you?

[00:01:30]>> Yes.

[00:01:30]>> May I see your ID, please?

[00:01:32]>> Oh my god.

[00:01:35]>> And do you have any THC on you right now?

[00:01:37]>> Yes.

[00:01:38]>> Okay. May I see that as well, please?

[00:01:40]>> No, because I have medical card.

[00:01:42]>> Okay. Can I see that as well, please?

[00:01:45]>> Yes. But you're stressing me out.

[00:01:52]>> Okay. I have this whole bag open.

[00:01:54]>> Okay. May May I see? Yes.

[00:01:55]>> Okay. Thank you. Do you want to step out real quick?

[00:01:57]>> No, I'm not stepping out. I know my law.

[00:02:00]>> All right.

[00:02:04]Watch her for a second.

[00:02:21]green bag right now.

[00:02:24]>> The green bag. He took all my THC.

[00:02:26]>> Ma'am, I have it right here on the hood of my car.

[00:02:28]>> Okay, give it back to me cuz I'm leaving.

[00:02:31]>> Okay, ma'am. Excuse me.

[00:02:34]But >> so here's the here's the deal, right?

[00:02:37]>> I'm not listening. Call my lawyer. Bye.

[00:02:40]>> Okay, ma'am. Well, you have to start.

[00:02:42]>> Please help me. Take it take him away from here. Go away. Leave. Leave. Leave.

[00:02:48]>> Can I Can I talk, ma'am?

[00:02:49]>> No. I don't want to talk to you. TALK TO MY LAWYER.

[00:02:52]>> OKAY. WHAT? WHAT? What is going >> Give me my THC stuff cuz I have a medical card and I paid $300 for this [ __ ] SO, GIVE IT BACK TO ME RIGHT NOW.

[00:03:01]ON MAY 12TH, 2025, the Wheeling Police Department initiated an investigative stop based on three compounding factors.

[00:03:09]First, direct officer observation of cannabis type distribution at the same location where four children have been hospitalized the previous day. Second, a physical description match confirmed by multiple citizen tips submitted to the department following the initial public notification. Third, the subject's immediate departure from the park upon the officer's presence of factor courts treat as contributing to reasonable suspicion under Illinois versus Wllo 528 US119 2000. Taken together, these facts establish reasonable articulable suspicion well above the threshold required by Terry versus Ohio 392 US1 1968. Terry holds that a brief investigative detention is constitutionally permissible when an officer can point to specific articulable facts supporting a reasonable inference of criminal activity. The officer did exactly that.

[00:04:00]He identified the prior incident, the citizen tips, the physical description match, and the direct observation, all at first contact. The stop was legally clean. The first legal flash point arrives immediately. The subject refuses to exit the vehicle and invokes her right to counsel. Both actions require separate constitutional analysis because they are not the same right. The fifth amendment protects against compelled self-inccrimination. The subject's refusal to answer questions is constitutionally protected. An officer cannot compel a statement. That right is real and it was correctly invoked. The right to remain silent, however, does not extend to the physical refusal to comply with a lawful detention order.

[00:04:39]These two rights operate on entirely separate legal tracks. On the question of vehicle exit, the law is unambiguous.

[00:04:46]Pennsylvania versus Mims 434US 106 1977 establish that an officer conducting a lawful detention may order the occupant to exit a vehicle without additional justification. The court's reasoning, the intrusion upon personal liberty is minimal. The subject is already seized while the officer safety interest is substantial. The exit order does not require probable cause. It requires only a lawful stop. That authority was extended to passengers in Maryland versus Wilson 519US 408 1997. Whether driver or passenger once a lawful stop is made, the exit order is valid. The subject's refusal constitutes at minimum a violation of 720 ILCS5 section 31-1 resisting or obstructing a peace officer. Non-compliance with a Mims order is not a gray area. It is obstruction. The subject produces identification and her Illinois medical cannabis card upon request. She also voluntarily discloses she has THC products in her possession. She then demands their return, claiming her medical card as justification. That argument fails under Illinois law. 720 ILCS 550 section 7A. The Cannabis Control Act specifically criminalizes the delivery of cannabis by any adult to a person under 18 years of age. A medical cannabis registry card issued under the compassionate use of medical cannabis program authorizes the card holders personal possession and use. It does not authorize third party delivery.

[00:06:17]It does not create an exemption for distribution to children. The argument is without legal merit. Property held as potential evidence during a lawful investigative detention is subject to temporary seizure under the plain view doctrine and the officer's investigative authority under Terry. The subject's demand for return of that property had no legal basis. When the officer formally orders the subject to exit the vehicle, she has now refused a lawful command multiple times. Under United States versus sharp 470 US 675, 1985, officers may detain a person for a reasonable duration. to complete a diligent investigation. The subject does not have the legal authority to unilaterally terminate a lawful detention. Driving away or attempting to from a lawful Terry stop is flight. It does not end the stop. It escalates it.

[00:07:07]>> No.

[00:07:08]>> No. I don't have You DON'T HAVE TO SEE [ __ ] >> OKAY, MAN. Stand by.

[00:07:15]>> Thank you.

[00:07:19]>> Perfect.

[00:07:22]Okay, remember you're ready.

[00:07:27]>> We're going to have to pull her out of the car, just so you know.

[00:07:33]>> PD1.

[00:07:34]>> No.

[00:07:34]>> No, >> not at all.

[00:07:36]>> All right. You have problem with us.

[00:07:37]Pick her up.

[00:07:37]>> No.

[00:07:38]>> All right. Yep. Secret.

[00:07:39]>> Okay. Ma'am, >> I know you want your lawyer. That's perfectly fine. You have to stop out of the car or we we have to put hands on you. I don't want to do that. We can go very very nicely. It's no problem. This won't take depends on me >> if you don't get out of the car.

[00:07:52]>> For what?

[00:07:53]>> Because I'm telling you to step out of the car. By law, you have to.

[00:07:56]>> Okay. Move. Move. Move.

[00:07:59]>> What up?

[00:08:00]>> What's your first name?

[00:08:01]>> Joanna.

[00:08:02]>> Joanna. Come on out, Joanna.

[00:08:03]>> No. Get move. Move.

[00:08:04]>> I'm not going to move. Step out of the car.

[00:08:06]>> How I'm supposed Yeah, I'm tall. I CAN'T MOVE.

[00:08:09]>> I KNOW.

[00:08:11]>> SO, what's in your hand?

[00:08:13]>> Nothing. Okay, turn around. Turn around.

[00:08:15]>> What the [ __ ] is going on here? Well, >> you I'll explain it to you.

[00:08:20]All right. Okay, ma'am. I'm putting you in handcuffs right now. You're being detained.

[00:08:23]>> Don't because I have a fibro and it hurts. Don't do it. Don't relax.

[00:08:28]>> We can put Don't put Don't put in a handcuff.

[00:08:32]>> We're going to put them on.

[00:08:32]>> Take them off as soon as we can.

[00:08:33]>> Don't do it IN THE FRONT OF ME, NOT BEHIND ME. IN THE FRONT OF ME.

[00:08:38]>> MA'AM, LISTEN. STOP. It's >> What is your What is your medical condition?

[00:08:41]>> What is WRONG WITH YOU?

[00:08:41]>> FIBROMYALGIA. STOP AND TRY THIS. MA'AM, >> STOP. THAT HURTS. IT'S [ __ ] >> STOP IT. LEAVE ME THE [ __ ] ALONE.

[00:09:12]Y >> THIS.

[00:09:20]>> Look at me.

[00:09:23]>> TAKE THIS OFF. I HAVE AUTISM. I HAVE [ __ ] AUTISM. TAKE THIS OFF.

[00:09:28]>> HOLD ON. BREATHE.

[00:09:33]>> TAKE THIS OFF, >> MA'AM. Hold on. Hold on.

[00:09:36]>> Take this off.

[00:09:38]TAKE THIS OFF.

[00:09:39]>> YOU TAKE MEDICATION. YES, I JUST DID.

[00:09:43]>> YES.

[00:09:44]>> What kind of medication do you feel OKAY RIGHT NOW?

[00:09:47]>> MARANA. THAT'S WHAT I TAKE.

[00:09:49]>> OKAY. Anything else?

[00:09:51]>> NO.

[00:09:52]>> OKAY. MA'AM, BREATHE.

[00:09:54]>> Take this off.

[00:09:55]>> I can't right now cuz you're flailing around. You're not listening to us.

[00:09:58]>> If you if you listen to us, things will go a lot smoother. You'll be a lot more comfortable.

[00:10:02]>> Take a deep breath. Okay. The use of force during physical removal is analyzed under Graham versus Connor 490US 3861 1989. Graham establishes that the reasonleness of force is judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene not with the benefit of 2020 hindsight. The relevant Graham factors here are the severity of the underlying offense. Delivery of cannabis to four hospitalized children is serious. The subject is actively physically resisting a lawful command.

[00:10:33]Flight risk is present. Compliance is absent. The force level deployed soft empty hand control and handcuffing sits at the appropriate level on the use of force continuum. For active physical resistance, no strikes, no impact weapons, no electronic control devices.

[00:10:48]Proportionate, the subject discloses fibromyalgia and autism during restraint. The officer appropriately pauses to inquire about the nature and severity of these conditions and offers front cuffing as an accommodation. That offer exceeds what the law requires. No court has held that fibromyalgia or autism creates a constitutional exemption from a lawful arrest or detention order. Disclosing a medical condition is relevant to officer welfare response. It does not suspend the lawful authority to detain.

[00:11:17]>> I'm not okay. You don't have to put this on me cuz I'm not going to hurt you. I never hurt no [ __ ] BODY IN MY LIFE. I DON'T THINK you ever see in a hurry like a >> moment a short ride.

[00:11:32]>> Please take it off.

[00:11:33]>> As soon as we get there, we can.

[00:11:35]>> We're going to get you into the air conditioning with us, which you're doing just fine.

[00:11:42]>> Be careful. Don't hit your head. Okay.

[00:11:44]>> Okay. Just don't get a 5minute drive.

[00:11:47]>> Sit there. Slide your feet in.

[00:11:52]>> You want me to help you? Yes.

[00:11:56]Okay.

[00:12:02]What do you have in that guy's car that needs to come with you? I have your bag.

[00:12:04]What else? Do you have a jacket?

[00:12:06]>> Yes, the red jacket.

[00:12:07]>> What else?

[00:12:08]>> I think that's it.

[00:12:09]>> Okay. So, I have your green bag. It's got your phone. It's got your THC.

[00:12:13]>> Please take this off.

[00:12:13]>> I I can't, ma'am. It'll be a five-minute drive. Anything else in this than this gentleman's car? No.

[00:12:18]>> Okay. I will grab that for you. Okay.

[00:12:20]Okay. And then it will be it'll be a short drive. Okay, we'll get we're almost there.

[00:12:25]>> On the charges, Dagmara J. Rouse was charged with 12 misdemeanor counts, four counts each of delivery of cannabis to a minor under 720 ILCS 550 section 7A, contributing to the delinquency of a minor under 720 ILCS 5 section 12 C3A and endangering the life or health of a child. Despite 12 charges, Rouse was released the same day. This outcome requires understanding Illinois's pre-trial fairness act, the statute commonly called the safety act effect of September 2023, which abolished cash bail statewide. Under 725 ILCS5, section 110-6.1, detention now requires a judicial finding by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant poses a specific identifiable threat and that no conditions of release can mitigate that threat. Misdemeanor offenses, even multiple counts, do not automatically satisfy the detainability threshold under the act. The state must affirmatively prove a specific identifiable danger. On these facts, at a misdemeanor level, that burden was not met. Rouse left with a court date. The wheeling officers receive a B+. The legal foundation of the stop was sound at every stage. Reasonable suspicion established and articulated at first contact. Exit order lawfully issued under MIMS. force proportionate to active resistance under Graham.

[00:13:47]Post-restraint conduct was notably professional welfare check, medication inquiry, property accounting, and a front cuffing offer that reflected deescalation awareness. One procedural note holds the grade below an A. The officer physically retrieved the THC bag before formally placing the subject under an articulated detention or arrest declaration. The seizure was valid, but the verbal sequencing could have been tighter. Dagmar J. Rouse receives a D.

[00:14:12]Rouse had constitutionally protected rights in this encounter and she exercised none of them correctly. The right to silence is real. The right to counsel is real. Neither right exempts a person from physically complying with a lawful exit order under settled Supreme Court president. Her sustained refusal to exit the vehicle escalated a two-minute investigative stop into a physical confrontation. The medical disclosures delivered during active resistance did not create legal shelter.

[00:14:39]Her full cooperation inside the patrol vehicle confirms she was always capable of compliance. That makes the resistance a choice, not a necessity. There is no legal strategy that supports refusing a Mims exit order. There is no case law that supports demanding return of evidentiary property mid detention.

[00:14:56]Every action Rouse took to assert control over the stop made her legal position worse, not better. Lessons learned. First, know the difference between your right to silence and your obligation to comply. The fifth amendment protects what you say. It does not protect what you do with your body when an officer issues a lawful order.

[00:15:13]Confusing these two rights is one of the most common and costly mistakes in police civilian encounters. Second, a medical cannabis card is not a universal shield. It authorizes personal possession and use within the statutory framework. It does not authorize delivery to third parties. It does not override criminal statutes. Presenting it as a defense to a delivery charge reflects a fundamental misreading of the law. Third, compliance and contest are not mutually exclusive. A person may comply fully with a lawful detention and still challenge it in court. Motions to suppress civil rights claims under 42 USC section 1983 in civilian complaints are all available after the fact. None of them require physical resistance at the scene. Fourth, the Safety Act changes detention outcomes, not criminal exposure. Walking out the same day does not mean the charges disappear. 12 misdemeanor counts remain in the court record. The act affects pre-trial detention, not guilt, not consequences.

[00:16:10]Fifth officer conduct under pressure is itself evidence. The wheeling officers in this footage remain patient through sustained resistance, offered accommodation, and conducted a professional post arrest welfare check.

[00:16:21]That conduct insulates the department from civil liability exposure and reflects the standard every law enforcement contact should meet. Let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic that you would like us to discuss in the comments below. Thank you for watching and don't forget to check out our second channel, Audit the Court, for even more police interaction and courtroom content.